Southerners who wanted to free the slaves

Yes, there were white Southerners who wanted to free the slaves. But, something that comes to my mind when I’m considering this is, well, with all of the talk about “Black Confederates”, and fair and equal treatment by the Confederacy… do tell… of those who wore gray, or were the big dogs in the Confederate government, who left documentation, from the time of the war, expressing an interest in freeing the slaves?

O.k., while that question is considered, today, I give you… Governor Francis Thomas, of Maryland.

Gov. Francis Thomas

Now, I’m by no means a “Thomas specialist”, but, I do know, when it came to slavery, he was noted for having called the institution “altogether unworthy of enlightened statesmen, and should be by all patriots repudiated”. Of course, look for that quote on the Web, and I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find the words that came before or after, so… if you are in the know, please feel to enlighten and provide us with context.

It just so happened that, two weekends ago, I was making my way through central Maryland, and made a point of stopping to see Thomas’ grave.

Thomas' headstone, at St. Mark's Episcopal Church Cemetery, Petersville, Md.

Sure, I imagine some folks are, at about this time, saying, “so?”

Well, let’s take a look at the other side of the headstone, and add a little something more…

If you can’t quite make that out, I’ll assist, but… first, of course, keep in mind… the Emancipation Proclamation had no impact on Maryland, correct? Yet, Maryland took measures on its own, to free its slaves by the fall of 1864… yes… 1864. Thomas was instrumental in this effort. In fact, he felt so strongly, he was quite proud to note his part in it, in words etched for posterity, on his headstone.

The author of the measure which gave to Maryland the Constitution of 1864 and thereby gave freedom to 90,000 human beings.

So, not only did he want to see an end to slavery, he had a hand in making it possible.

Question for you. Was there ever an effort made by Southerners, a serious political or social effort, to emancipate Southern slaves before the Civil War? Were there any major politcal, religious or business figures who championed the cause of emancipation in the South and did they ever attract a significant following?

I’m unaware of any that wanted emancipation without colonization. What’s most interesting is the awareness of slavery in the negative moral sense, and the varied reactions because… or despite… the awareness. Several Southern churches splintered because of the differing views.

My recollection is that there were many colonizationist groups in the South, but that they mostly ceased to exist in the 1830s. Southerners who were abolitionists included the Grimke sisters and James G. Birney, and they weren’t too popular in the South.

I seem to vaguely recall something about the Grimke sisters, but need to look back at that again. Don’t think I ever recall hearing about James G. Birney. So, thanks for those leads.

Discussion of colonization went into the 1850s. The Ruffner Pamphlet of 1847 was a hot topic in its day, and endorsed by John Letcher (who backed-off when it came to his run for governor… as a politician, can’t alienate those who want to keep slavery in place… you know…). But, to be sure, Ruffner’s thoughts were not something akin to abolitionism. He had a pretty low opinion of African-Americans.

Also worth a look is the effort of the Maryland State Colonization Society, which was a spin-off of the American Colonization Society. They pretty much began to whither by the 1850s.

The Grimke sisters were born into a wealthy South Carolina planter family, .

Birney was born in Kentucky, moved to Alabama and became a planter and slave owner. He turned against slavery, freeing his own slaves, became a colonizationist, and by the early 1830s an outright abolitionist. He was twice the Liberty Party’s presidential candidate.

I think I have fallen into the trap of lumping “the South” together as a whole, forgetting the distinctions between various regions and localities. My recollection is that as a result of antislavery agitation in the 1830s, the petitions to Congress and the Gag Rule controversy, throughout much of the deep South at least, the colonizationist societies withered with the renewed and vigorous defense of slavery. Letcher’s early support of the Ruffner pamphlet, and subsequent reversal, is instructive of the difficulty for Southern politicians to hold stances other than vigorous defenses of slavery. I have seen Letcher referred to by contemporary Confederate partisans as an example of a Southerner who opposed slavery, and I think to say the least this does violence to the actual historical record and grossly distorts the political realities of the politics of slavery throughout the South. Virginia’s politics around slavery were particularly complicated given it’s regional differences, location as a border state, ties to Northern economic changes, and role in the internal slave trade.

I believe that Letcher’s support of the pamphlet was genuine. That being said, however, I think he was very much a politician, and knew that support of the pamphlet in earlier years might compromise his run for governor. I think he knew that support from west of the Blue Ridge was limited, and he couldn’t afford the loss of support from eastern slaveholders.

I agree with you and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Letcher’s initial endorsement of the pamphlet, and think that his reversal demonstrates the necessity of supporting slavery for Southern politicians to be successful (there I go generalizing again!). If I remember correctly, he made several speeches while in Congress during the 1850s asserting himself as a staunch supporter of slavery. As we know, the divisions between the western region and the Tidewater, along with the disagreement over whether slavery was best protected within or outside of the Union made for very complex politics at the Virginia Secession Convention.

Sorry, I posted before I was done. Ruffner was viewed by many Virginians (particularly those in Tidewater and Southside), as an abolitionist which, of course, he was not. I believe Ruffner’s pamphlet appealed primarily to what he viewed as the negative economic impact of slavery.

Correct. He was anything but an abolitionist. Also, an examination of the text reveals, he most certaintly was not looking out for the interest of African-Americans. The motivation behind the pamphlet was all about opening up economic opportunities, and that most certainly included employment opportunities for whites.

“that most certainly included employment opportunities for whites.” Exactly. Which, of course, was not unique to Ruffner. I also believe that Ruffner actually left Lexington due in large part to the “abolitionist” charge and his dismay over the reaction to his pamphlet. His son was the first Public School Supt. for the Commonwealth.

Still going to get around to that post, but thought I’d pass along that there was a letter to Ruffner, dated September 1, 1847, in which several notable personalities of Virginia history (among whom were included former Gov. S. McDowell Moore, future Gov. John Letcher, and John Echols) had actually “petitioned” Ruffner to publish his address.

I don’t think Ruffner felt he had to leave Lexington because he was being branded as an abolitionist. I think his pamphlet addressed many of the issues that folks out this way related to. It was the eastern Virginians… especially those in the Tidewater… who took issue with Ruffner.

“several notable personalities of Virginia history (among whom were included former Gov. S. McDowell Moore, future Gov. John Letcher, and John Echols) had actually “petitioned” Ruffner to publish his address.”

Yes, I’m familiar with the story. While researching my book about Jackson’s Sunday school class, I believe I recall that Ruffner presented his pamphlet in the form of a speech to the Franklin Society in Lexington. Many prominent men were members of this debating “club”, including Thomas J. Jackson. I recall that at least on one occasion after a debate, the members considered the question of whether the Virginia legislature should gradually emancipate the slaves. The vote was affirmative. Given the fact that a number of prominent leaders in Lexington (and Virginia) at least initially endorsed Ruffner’s pamphlet, what, in your mind, caused them to change their minds?

I think it was a geographically confined opinion. Sure, there were others throughout the state who likely supported the idea, but I think the idea was more widely accepted west of the Blue Ridge (though, I’m sure, there were those who didn’t support on this side, also). I think there was also the huge issue of economics involved in the whole relocation thing. It would have been pricy, and that’s one of the same obstacles that Lincoln’s plan faced (as clearly noted by those who were representatives of the border states).

It’s interesting, but, Ruffner was, himself, a slaveholder. I’d have to look up how many he owned, but, I think it must have been nominal compared to the easterners. It would be interesting to see the number of slaves owned by those who endorsed the idea. I would think they didn’t hold that many, and the economic impact wouldn’t really be great, if they took part in the plan.